Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:25, 11 March 2009

Template:WikiProject DC

U.S. Congress Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", or "Events".

Energy Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I added this absolutely horrid picture because it was the only public domain image I could find on the web. If anyone has a better one feel free to replace it. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 20:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Can someone clean up the grammar here? It's pretty bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.84.253.241 (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

March 2, 2009 Protest

The fact the that protest nearly shut down because of inclement weather is a relevant fact that has been properly sourced. Removal of properly sourced material in a neutral narrative is disruptive per the Arbcom. --GoRight (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it's sourced does not make it relevant to this article. Simply stating it is does not make it so, either. Raul654 (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's relevant to the section it was added to. If the protest itself is notable then so are the circumstances (as independently noted by the news outlets) surrounding it. The statement is clearly neutral and you are being disruptive by removing it.

"Simply stating it is does not make it so, either." - The fact that the protest occurred on a day that almost shut down Washington D.C. as reported by two major news outlets is sort of undeniable, it's not just my opinion. --GoRight (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The protest happened to occur on a Monday. By your logic, we should include this fact about the rally. Except it's irrelevant, as are the weather conditions the protest took place in. The fact that it snowed at a global warming rally is being used by uninformed people as a way of discrediting the reality of global warming. (GW is not yet catastrophic enough to prevent all snow from falling) Including this irrelevant information is simply a backdoor effort to discredit the purpose of the rally, and it's not going to fly here. Raul654 (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, is that soapbox big enough for ya? It is still noteworthy whatever you think of the reasons for including it (not that your screed actually articulates my reasons). The news media independently took note of it and reported it in the stories so apparently they felt it was relevant. We are supposed to capture the content being reported about these events in a neutral manner. You are trying to introduce bias to the detriment of the project, and doing so in a manner that you know the Arbcom has ruled is disruptive. --GoRight (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It is still noteworthy whatever you think of the reasons for including it - sorry, you have that backwards. *You*, as the one attempting to restore a banned user's edit, need to get consensus to include it, and you don't have it. Raul654 (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't restored a banned user's edit, I have made my own independently considered addition to this page. It is neutrally worded and properly sourced. Your removal is disruptive per the Arbcom decision already cited. You, on the other hand not only reverted my addition but my clear improvement to the project which I made here. You are actively damaging the project. --GoRight (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Unassessed U.S. Congress articles
• Unknown-importance U.S. Congress articles
• Unknown-subject U.S. Congress articles
• Start-Class energy articles
• Low-importance energy articles